This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Although Lewis' work is alluded to, it's miscited to claim that convictions about Biblical doctrine 'were not a primary motivating factor'. Shaftesbury and his extensive and vocal evangelical supporters cajoled Palmerston for precisely these primary reasons, and Lewis argues there is every reason to believe that without this pressure, expediency would have excluded the first Anglican bishop, church and mission in Jerusalem in the face of Ottoman opposition. This Biblical and romantic expectation set the scene for Balfour and his cabinet, even in the cooling devotion of the years of the early 20th Century and Lewis documents this extensively. The sentence ought to reflect this major contribution and capture nuances of different historical opinion about what was primary or not, to what extent evangelical purposes were post hoc justifications or foundational drivers later. The article also ought to add some reference to Shaftesbury's role. Cpsoper ( talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the illustration showing the front page of the Charlotte newspaper. The caption read "Six months before the Declaration, this front page article from the Charlotte Observer notes the announcement that Balfour and Wilson had "informally discussed" the project". The story is false speculation based on rumor-- there was no "announcement' and there was no meeting between Wilson and Balfour that discussed the Palestine issue. No Wilson biographer mentions it. See John Milton Cooper, Woodrow Wilson, page 418. Instead Balfour met with Brandeis, who was the leading American supporter of Zionism. See Albert S. Lindemann (1997). Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. p. 417.. It goes to reinforce the Wikipedia advice at WP:WPNOTRS that editors should be very careful about using primary sources, (like this newspaper's untrue speculation), and rely instead on solid reliable secondary sources. Rjensen ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
What dos that mean? this sentence appears in the beginning of the article, and does not include any source. I think it is incorrect - for example, Palestine was not part of Syria when it was part of the Egyptian New Kingdom, or the Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem. The 6th Floor ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
So what is the solution you are proposing? It is not true that Palestine had always formed part of Syria, and having imprecise/variable geographic designations for both Palestine ans Syria only makes the problem worse. Why do we have this incorrect sentence in the very beginning of the article ? The 6th Floor ( talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I see it was removed after my last comment. Thank you! The 6th Floor ( talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To editor Rjensen: we should agree what part of the acetone story has been discredited, and what is relevant to the article. I believe the discredited part is any suggestion that the Declaration was some form of repayment for Weizmann's work on acetone production, and possibly even the suggestion that Weizmann was a particularly brilliant chemist (he had been fired from his previous role a few years earlier, and was a reader (academic rank), not a professor, before he managed to get funding for his acetone work during the war). What is not discredited is the fact that (a) this is a very well known claim, based on Lloyd George's memoirs, and (b) that Weizmann's first meeting with Lloyd George came in the context of his chemical work (this is particularly relevant, as Weizmann never met Asquith, for example).
On the basis of the above I would like to agree with you a middle ground on the text. I intend to add back all the sources that have been removed in your last edit so that readers can see the detail if they wish - do you object to this?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The lead needs to be rewritten anyway, but I'll just deal with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The source cited lays out both the British and Arab position, however it makes clear that the British position in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence was duplicitous, and was only made to secure support of Hussein for the war effort. Here are quotes:
At the same time, the British along with the French and Russians were drawing up the secret May 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement which would demonstrate that the British government had little intention of making good on the McMahon pledges
.
Here is another quote, from the next page, directly addressing the discrepancy between the British and Arab positions: Of course, events not soon after the McMahon-Hussein correspondence ceased would make many of these discrepancies moot. The Balfour Declaration certainly seemed to fly in the face of Hussein's understanding of the McMahon's agreement, but even that declaration contains a phrase that implies protection of the rights of the existing Arab inhabitants of Palestine. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's insistence at the 1919 Paris Peace conference that Great Britain maintain control of Palestine (and Iraq) further demonstrated the British unwillingness to honor the agreements McMahon had made.
The lead should not give the impression that this is a "he said/she said" matter. It should make it clear that the British position was duplicitous and they had no intention of keeping to the terms of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and nor did they actually do so in practice. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy The source you cited says in plain language that the British had no intention of keeping to the McMahon pledges, and they, in fact, didn't keep their pledges (not only about Palestine, but other cases like Iraq as well). That's not a "POV", it is a question of summarizing the source accurately. The lead can certainly mention the British position, but it cannot give the impression that this is all a "he said/she said matter". This point was recognized by Balfour himself. This is a primary source, so I do not wish to include it in the article, I just give it to prove the point. I quote:
In 1915 we promised the Arabs independence; and the promise was unqualified, except in respect of certain territorial reservations. In 1918 the promise was by implication repeated; for no other interpretation can, I think, be placed by any unbiased reader on the phrases in the declaration about a“National Government’, and “an Administration deriving its authority from the initiative and free choiceof the native population’.
But in 1916 (Sykes-Picot) the independence even of the most independent portion of the new Arab State(i.e. , areas A and B) was qualified by the obligatory presence of foreign advisers; as, indeed, it is under the mandatory system of 1919. Now, by ’adviser’ these documents undoubtedly mean —though they donot say so— an adviser whose advice must be followed; and assuredly no State can be described as really independent which has habitually and normally to follow foreign advice supported, if the worst comes tothe worst, by troops, aeroplanes and tanks.
In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sherif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter, except certain reservations intended to protect French interests in Western Syria and Cilicia.
In 1916 all this seems to have been forgotten. The Sykes-Picot Agreement made no reference to the Sherif of Mecca, and, so far as our five documents are concerned, he has never been heard of since. A wholly new method was adopted by France and England, who made with each other in the Sykes-Picot Agreement the rough and ready territorial arrangements already described—arrangements which the Allied and Associated Powers have so far neither explicitly accepted nor explicitly replaced.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I had thought it was the Sykes Picot that was leaked by the Sovs(not the Declaration)and that the response for that was the Basset letter (I have a copy now and it is no better than the telegrams I guess). Not sure how Husein finds out about Declaration, it was published anyway and then the response for that is the Hogarth message. Anyone got anything to add to that? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
K, will do, for interest, Idk if its of any use, here's that Basset letter: COMMUNICATION FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO THE KING OF THE HEJAZ (February 8, 1918) (The text of the original communication has often appeared in the Arabic Press in facsimile reproduction from a photostat copy supplied by the late King Husain. The original communication was in Arabic. The version given here is my own rendering from the Arabic
text.) - Antonius, op. cit., p. 431-2
( TRANSLATION) THE ACTING BRITISH AGENT, JEDDA TO KING HUSAIN Jedda, February 8, 1918 Complimentary titles. I am directed by His Britannic Majesty's High Com- missioner to forward to Your Majesty the text of a tele- graphic message which His Excellency has had from the For- eign Office in London for transmission as a communication from His Britannic Majesty's Government to Your Majesty. The text is verbatim as follows: Begins. The loyal motives which have prompted Your Majesty to forward to the High Commissioner the letters ad- dressed by the Turkish commander-in-chief in Syria to His Highness the Amir Faisal and to Ja'far Pasha have caused His Majesty's Government the liveliest satisfaction. The steps taken by Your Majesty in this connexion are only a token of the friendship and mutual sincerity which have always inspir- ed the relations between the Government of the Hejaz and His Majesty's Government. It would be superfluous to point out that the object aimed at by Turkey is to sow doubt and suspicion between the Allied Powers and those Arabs who, under Your Majesty's leadership and guidance, are striving nobly to recover their ancient freedom. The Turkish policy is to create dissension by luring the Arabs into believing that the Allied Powers have designs on the Arab countries, and by represent to the Allies that the Arabs might be made to re- nounce their aspirations. But such intrigues cannot succeed in sowing dissension among those whose minds are directed by a common purpose to a common end. His Majesty's Government and their allies stand steadfastly by every cause aiming at the liberation of the oppressed nations, and they are determined to stand by the Arab peoples in their struggle for the establishment of an Arab world in which law shall replace Ottoman injustice, and in which unity shall prevail over the rivalries artificially provoked by the policy of Turkish officials. His Majesty's Government re-affirm their former pledge in regard to the liberation of the Arab peoples. His Majesty's Government have hitherto made it their policy to ensure that liberation, and it remains the policy they are determined unflinchingly to pursue by protecting such Arabs as are already liberated from all dangers and perils, and by assisting those who are still under the yoke of the tyrants to obtain their freedom. Ends. Compliments. J. R. Bassett, Lt.-Col. Acting British Agent, Jedda. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the listing of this page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 April 29, I've removed a good deal of quoted material from the Notes section here. The edit history seems to show that that content was more than 25% of the whole page, and I've not removed it all; in my opinion, that's an excessive proportion. It's to be expected that an article such as this will need to rely quite heavily on quotation, as indeed it still does; but there is – in my view – absolutely no value in reproducing great chunks of text from the references. Indeed, I believe the article as a whole is improved by lightening that section.
Quotation is acceptable in Wikipedia, but within narrow limits. Our policy says " There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". Our guideline says " Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". I accept that some of the content I removed may perhaps by now be out of copyright. We have sister projects – Wikiquote and Wikisource – where some of this material could perhaps appropriately be hosted. I apologise if I messed anything up – I did try not to! Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I am preparing a summary of the notes on Talk:Balfour Declaration/Sources. Then we can discuss on a case by case basis. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm coming to this discussion from ANI. I haven't had any real chance to review the article yet (and may not today) but there are a couple of points I think need to be spelled out immediately.
First, when considering whether text is to be included, the standard to be applied is not the Berne Convention but Wikipedia's policies. Any attempt to assess individual quotes against the right to quote is a waste of time; Wikipedia's copyright policy is deliberately more restrictive than the law.
Second, the attempt to wikilawyer the text of that policy to mean extensive quotation from any single text is absurd. By that reading, any article could be entirely composed of copyright violations, so long as they were many and short. If the drafter of that policy had meant to say, extensive quotation of a copyrighted text is prohibited,
they would have done so. The attempt to read it as though they did is contrary both to good English style and common English usage. The fact is that that is not what the policy says.
GoldenRing (
talk)
23:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text- That is still just as absurd as last time you said it, and for all the same reasons. A case of IDHT is developing here. GoldenRing ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it is best to look at each case separately and see if the quotation is appropriate. Perhaps I can start in the section below? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm certainly not prepared to discuss anything on a case-by-case basis until and unless the bulk restoration of the unacceptable material, first by Oncenawhile and then by Rjensen, has been undone. In other words, they want a procedure where everything is out by default, and the parts which are agreed-to are included. Keeping in mind WP:DEADLINE, I propose a half-way compromise as a starting point, modeled on the proposal above by Oncenawhile:
Keep all the quotes in (1), which are definitely out of copyright, in the article. Move all the quotes in (2) to the talk page (or the copyright page or wherever it's convenient). Then we can discuss (2) one by one.
How does that sound? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd have seen this sooner if you'd pinged me, Kingsindian – I'm not watching this page closely. My thoughts:
I made an alternative suggestion above (use the sister-projects). Did anyone respond to that? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On reading through the page (again) in relation to the question of "twice promised" and all the other real or apparent contradictions, the relevant material appears in two sections. First, in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie the Declaration text) there is a discussion about some aspects of UK policy and some discussion about the Mandate as well. Second, under "Effects of related British commitments during WWI" we have more discussion of what amounts to the same basic question.
It seems to me that the first section should confine itself to simply the meaning of the text and perhaps how it was to be given effect for purposes of the Mandate.
Then the second can be devoted to the vexed question of the inconsistencies and contradictions etc. and a suitable introduction to it could be simply to lift Balfours 1919 from the first section
"What I have never been able to understand is how [our policy] can be harmonised with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry... "
Thoughts? Selfstudier ( talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I will try to write here what I am doing as I go to try and minimize any confusion; as a first step, I will move all except the first 2 paragraphs of the material in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" to the beginning (for now) of the section "Effects of related British commitments during WWI". Afterwards,we can examine how to didy up the resultant. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Mandate itself is also a British policy (and as well subject to the Covenant of the League of Nations) and one which impacted on the Declaration directly yet I cannot see that the effects and results of this policy have been properly addressed although there is a discussion about it in primary source w (1930 interpretation of UK policy). For instance Churchill gave an interpretation of UK policy in 1922 and more controversially, in 1939, the British gave yet another interpretation in relation to Hogarth message. I guess what I am trying to say here is that if you are going to follow a timeline, then one needs to point up changes in British policy (or interpretations of British policy for the Mandates Commission)as you go along, alternatively deal with all the changes in policy in one section devoted only to that. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
To further elucidate, here are places where 1939 matters come up in the existing article
Related British commitments during WWI ...
...and by the time of the 1939 committee set up to consider the correspondence, it avoided taking a position on the matter altogether.
and
Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... A 1939 British Government committee led by the Lord Chancellor, Frederic Maugham, concluded that the government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine"
On the face of it there is a contradiction there, nor is it clear why one conclusion should be under a WW1 heading and the other under a Declaration text heading. Apart from that, the weight that has been given to 1939 is insufficient, given the importance of those events and the events set in motion then.
Finally, lest I talk myself to death, can we agree that there is a problem? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand your a,b,c structure and that you would like to maintain it if at all possible (my edit did not alter it at all, I just shuffled some stuff around within it as I am somewhat disagreeing as to what is content and what is impact). Let me try to explain some more; one way of viewing this (all of it) is simply as a series of UK policies (in response to whatever) and the first problem we have is that the "first" policy predates the subject matter of the article as does the second (McMahon and SykesPicot). So to deal with that you have shuffled these two items together under a heading "Related British commitments during WWI" (UK policies)and I have no real problem with that except it is not any of your a, b or c.(I'm just using "you" generically here, I do not know if you are the original author). Many people have a misconception about the Declaration, they see it and they believe they understand it and I am sure they do up to that point. I am not sure it strictly qualifies as a "policy" (Palestine did not exist then except on paper), it certainly became one once it was included in the Mandate and the Mandate also acted so as to alter the effect of the Declaration in some respects ( /info/en/?search=British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Legal_basis_and_drafting_of_the_mandate here and subseq by way of example and a bit as well for the "nonJews"). Now what about these other policies, we have AnglFrench, the Covenant, Hogarth, Basset (I cant find a copy of this), Declaration to 7, Allenby/Faisal. Some would say Hogarth is pretty important ("political") however it was not until 1939 that UK policy was interpreted this way to the Mandates Commission. OK, the sum total effect of most (but not all)of these things was looked into in 1939 and we know the conclusions (I do not agree with the the way those conclusions are represented in the article). In any case, they were the 1939 conclusions of the British and were somewhat different from conclusions that they had reached earlier. OK, I get the 100 years thing (that is why I am taking an interest and so will many others no doubt)I am simply taking a narrower view of things, much happened in 1939 (not least another War), the Jews decided that the UK was no longer "on it's side" regardless of whether that was true or not and crossed the pond. It set the stage for the end of the Mandate (and the "death" (purpose fulfilled) of the Declaration) I have tried to paint a picture of what I "miss" when I read the article, not sure if I have succeeded. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Just another little bit,the way I look at it, it's not that 1939 is an impact of the Declaration, it's that 1939 impacts ON the Declaration (alters its effect) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
How about a new section after that one called something like "Evolution of the mandate in practice" and filling that up with much of what is now in "Civil and religious rights.." (especially para 2)? Plus expand it a little to take in 1939 more fully. (Just as an aside, the dual obligation stuff is all very interesting, do we really need the whole timeline of that? Isn't the 1930 conclusion about it sufficient?) Tell you what, let me have a go at it and if you don't like it we can revert, edit it or whatever. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed my mind, I'll suggest in here first:- 1)Delete Para 2 of "Civil and Religious Rights.." 2)New Content after 4. The Declaration put 3)5. Evolution of the Mandate with following outline (not finished yet)
Although the British Mandate for Palestine as the vehicle for delivering the promises of the Declaration[111] was not finally confirmed until 1922 the British had in fact already switched from military to civilian rule with the appointment of Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner as of 1 July 1920. The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations' consent in 1923.
Because of these delays, the PMM did not have it's first review of the mandate operation until 1924 and used the term "twofold duty" [106] to refer to the pair of obligations to Jew and nonJew. In 1930 the Permanent Mandates Commission and the British Government in the Passfield white paper[w] confirmed that these obligations were of equal weight.
For an account of how the dual obligation was dealt with and the problems that were presented thereby see /info/en/?search=Mandatory_Palestine
Fifteen years after the Mandate was confirmed, the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission report, the first official proposal for partition of the region, referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations"[112][113] and with respect to the wider situation that had arisen in Palestine noted that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation".[114] The continuing intercommunal conflict had proven to the British that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences.[xviii][x]
The partition proposal was not taken up and just 2 years later in 1939 as WW2 loomed large and following the failure of the Arab Zionist London Conference and the report of the Committee set up to investigate Mcmahon and other UK policy documents, UK policy was substantively changed....
....End of Mandate
It's not intended to be a total history just key points relating to the Declaration. What do you think? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's mainly done now, section probably needs some tidying up and adding few more sources, will keep doing that,welcome any comments suggestions, is it a bit long? Selfstudier ( talk) 10:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Selfstudier: Some initial comments:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a bit of work there, I think I will just remove the section for now, maybe I will put it back in later when I find some free time to fix it up as you want. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
After some thought I picked up the Permanent Mandates Commission stub and have started to expand that and from there a new page Permanent_Mandates_Commission_(Palestine) and I have started to put the Evolution stuff in there. That seems to fit better with the Wikipedia bureaucracy than trying to fit it in here and as well having to compromise the content. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears that every mention of 1917 in the article was changed to 1918 without reference in a possible act of vandalism, but I do not have the privileges to edit this page, if someone could change it back to 1917 it would be helpful. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We currently have two quotes from the Palin Commission report in blue backgrounded boxes. This seems UNDUE. Is there a particular reason we need this much text quoted directly from this document? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians does not seem to be published by an academic press or even I.B Tauris' "academic" imprint. A google search for Sahar Heneidi doesn't seem to return any relevant results about her bio (I'm assuming she's not the holistic therapist). Does anyone have any information on her credentials/expertise that would make her and by extension the book she wrote RS? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this review will help you decide? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13531040312331287674 Some brief details on this page too http://www.balfourproject.org/healing-the-wounds-of-history-looking-at-the-balfour-declaration-with-new-eyes/ Selfstudier ( talk) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The IP edits reverted by Hertz raised a good point - that the article is missing a mention of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. Oncenawhile ( talk) 15:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the statement ("The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded.") qualifies in the sense of high quality primary sources and
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully ie Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
In this case then, we do not actually need secondary sources to support the statement. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is what it says on Churchill White Paper page, it is not as if the conclusion we are attempting to write is not well known to scholars -
Subsequent revelations
A committee established by the British in 1939 to clarify the various arguments observed that many commitments had been made during and after the Great War—and that all of them would have to be studied together. The Arab representatives submitted a statement to the committee from Sir Michael McDonnell[5] which explained that whatever McMahon had intended to mean was of no legal consequence, since it was his actual statements that constituted the pledge from His Majesty's Government. They also pointed out that McMahon had been acting as an intermediary for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, Lord Grey had made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the Churchill White Paper's interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915.[6]
Years later, scholars searching through the declassified files in the National Archives discovered evidence that Palestine had been pledged to Hussein. The Eastern Committee of the Cabinet, previously known as the Middle Eastern Committee, had met on 5 December 1918 to discuss the government's commitments regarding Palestine. Lord Curzon chaired the meeting. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained the Hussein, Sykes-Picot, and Balfour commitments:
"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . Great Britain and France—Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, [and the Sharif of Mecca] who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[7]
On the Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement page it says with no sourcing whatever (the author probably thought it was obvious):
Between 1916-20, the British government interpreted these commitments as including Palestine in the Arab area. However, in the 1922 Churchill White Paper they argued instead that Palestine had been excluded.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Although Lewis' work is alluded to, it's miscited to claim that convictions about Biblical doctrine 'were not a primary motivating factor'. Shaftesbury and his extensive and vocal evangelical supporters cajoled Palmerston for precisely these primary reasons, and Lewis argues there is every reason to believe that without this pressure, expediency would have excluded the first Anglican bishop, church and mission in Jerusalem in the face of Ottoman opposition. This Biblical and romantic expectation set the scene for Balfour and his cabinet, even in the cooling devotion of the years of the early 20th Century and Lewis documents this extensively. The sentence ought to reflect this major contribution and capture nuances of different historical opinion about what was primary or not, to what extent evangelical purposes were post hoc justifications or foundational drivers later. The article also ought to add some reference to Shaftesbury's role. Cpsoper ( talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the illustration showing the front page of the Charlotte newspaper. The caption read "Six months before the Declaration, this front page article from the Charlotte Observer notes the announcement that Balfour and Wilson had "informally discussed" the project". The story is false speculation based on rumor-- there was no "announcement' and there was no meeting between Wilson and Balfour that discussed the Palestine issue. No Wilson biographer mentions it. See John Milton Cooper, Woodrow Wilson, page 418. Instead Balfour met with Brandeis, who was the leading American supporter of Zionism. See Albert S. Lindemann (1997). Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. p. 417.. It goes to reinforce the Wikipedia advice at WP:WPNOTRS that editors should be very careful about using primary sources, (like this newspaper's untrue speculation), and rely instead on solid reliable secondary sources. Rjensen ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
What dos that mean? this sentence appears in the beginning of the article, and does not include any source. I think it is incorrect - for example, Palestine was not part of Syria when it was part of the Egyptian New Kingdom, or the Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem. The 6th Floor ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
So what is the solution you are proposing? It is not true that Palestine had always formed part of Syria, and having imprecise/variable geographic designations for both Palestine ans Syria only makes the problem worse. Why do we have this incorrect sentence in the very beginning of the article ? The 6th Floor ( talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I see it was removed after my last comment. Thank you! The 6th Floor ( talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
To editor Rjensen: we should agree what part of the acetone story has been discredited, and what is relevant to the article. I believe the discredited part is any suggestion that the Declaration was some form of repayment for Weizmann's work on acetone production, and possibly even the suggestion that Weizmann was a particularly brilliant chemist (he had been fired from his previous role a few years earlier, and was a reader (academic rank), not a professor, before he managed to get funding for his acetone work during the war). What is not discredited is the fact that (a) this is a very well known claim, based on Lloyd George's memoirs, and (b) that Weizmann's first meeting with Lloyd George came in the context of his chemical work (this is particularly relevant, as Weizmann never met Asquith, for example).
On the basis of the above I would like to agree with you a middle ground on the text. I intend to add back all the sources that have been removed in your last edit so that readers can see the detail if they wish - do you object to this?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The lead needs to be rewritten anyway, but I'll just deal with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The source cited lays out both the British and Arab position, however it makes clear that the British position in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence was duplicitous, and was only made to secure support of Hussein for the war effort. Here are quotes:
At the same time, the British along with the French and Russians were drawing up the secret May 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement which would demonstrate that the British government had little intention of making good on the McMahon pledges
.
Here is another quote, from the next page, directly addressing the discrepancy between the British and Arab positions: Of course, events not soon after the McMahon-Hussein correspondence ceased would make many of these discrepancies moot. The Balfour Declaration certainly seemed to fly in the face of Hussein's understanding of the McMahon's agreement, but even that declaration contains a phrase that implies protection of the rights of the existing Arab inhabitants of Palestine. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's insistence at the 1919 Paris Peace conference that Great Britain maintain control of Palestine (and Iraq) further demonstrated the British unwillingness to honor the agreements McMahon had made.
The lead should not give the impression that this is a "he said/she said" matter. It should make it clear that the British position was duplicitous and they had no intention of keeping to the terms of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and nor did they actually do so in practice. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy The source you cited says in plain language that the British had no intention of keeping to the McMahon pledges, and they, in fact, didn't keep their pledges (not only about Palestine, but other cases like Iraq as well). That's not a "POV", it is a question of summarizing the source accurately. The lead can certainly mention the British position, but it cannot give the impression that this is all a "he said/she said matter". This point was recognized by Balfour himself. This is a primary source, so I do not wish to include it in the article, I just give it to prove the point. I quote:
In 1915 we promised the Arabs independence; and the promise was unqualified, except in respect of certain territorial reservations. In 1918 the promise was by implication repeated; for no other interpretation can, I think, be placed by any unbiased reader on the phrases in the declaration about a“National Government’, and “an Administration deriving its authority from the initiative and free choiceof the native population’.
But in 1916 (Sykes-Picot) the independence even of the most independent portion of the new Arab State(i.e. , areas A and B) was qualified by the obligatory presence of foreign advisers; as, indeed, it is under the mandatory system of 1919. Now, by ’adviser’ these documents undoubtedly mean —though they donot say so— an adviser whose advice must be followed; and assuredly no State can be described as really independent which has habitually and normally to follow foreign advice supported, if the worst comes tothe worst, by troops, aeroplanes and tanks.
In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sherif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter, except certain reservations intended to protect French interests in Western Syria and Cilicia.
In 1916 all this seems to have been forgotten. The Sykes-Picot Agreement made no reference to the Sherif of Mecca, and, so far as our five documents are concerned, he has never been heard of since. A wholly new method was adopted by France and England, who made with each other in the Sykes-Picot Agreement the rough and ready territorial arrangements already described—arrangements which the Allied and Associated Powers have so far neither explicitly accepted nor explicitly replaced.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I had thought it was the Sykes Picot that was leaked by the Sovs(not the Declaration)and that the response for that was the Basset letter (I have a copy now and it is no better than the telegrams I guess). Not sure how Husein finds out about Declaration, it was published anyway and then the response for that is the Hogarth message. Anyone got anything to add to that? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
K, will do, for interest, Idk if its of any use, here's that Basset letter: COMMUNICATION FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO THE KING OF THE HEJAZ (February 8, 1918) (The text of the original communication has often appeared in the Arabic Press in facsimile reproduction from a photostat copy supplied by the late King Husain. The original communication was in Arabic. The version given here is my own rendering from the Arabic
text.) - Antonius, op. cit., p. 431-2
( TRANSLATION) THE ACTING BRITISH AGENT, JEDDA TO KING HUSAIN Jedda, February 8, 1918 Complimentary titles. I am directed by His Britannic Majesty's High Com- missioner to forward to Your Majesty the text of a tele- graphic message which His Excellency has had from the For- eign Office in London for transmission as a communication from His Britannic Majesty's Government to Your Majesty. The text is verbatim as follows: Begins. The loyal motives which have prompted Your Majesty to forward to the High Commissioner the letters ad- dressed by the Turkish commander-in-chief in Syria to His Highness the Amir Faisal and to Ja'far Pasha have caused His Majesty's Government the liveliest satisfaction. The steps taken by Your Majesty in this connexion are only a token of the friendship and mutual sincerity which have always inspir- ed the relations between the Government of the Hejaz and His Majesty's Government. It would be superfluous to point out that the object aimed at by Turkey is to sow doubt and suspicion between the Allied Powers and those Arabs who, under Your Majesty's leadership and guidance, are striving nobly to recover their ancient freedom. The Turkish policy is to create dissension by luring the Arabs into believing that the Allied Powers have designs on the Arab countries, and by represent to the Allies that the Arabs might be made to re- nounce their aspirations. But such intrigues cannot succeed in sowing dissension among those whose minds are directed by a common purpose to a common end. His Majesty's Government and their allies stand steadfastly by every cause aiming at the liberation of the oppressed nations, and they are determined to stand by the Arab peoples in their struggle for the establishment of an Arab world in which law shall replace Ottoman injustice, and in which unity shall prevail over the rivalries artificially provoked by the policy of Turkish officials. His Majesty's Government re-affirm their former pledge in regard to the liberation of the Arab peoples. His Majesty's Government have hitherto made it their policy to ensure that liberation, and it remains the policy they are determined unflinchingly to pursue by protecting such Arabs as are already liberated from all dangers and perils, and by assisting those who are still under the yoke of the tyrants to obtain their freedom. Ends. Compliments. J. R. Bassett, Lt.-Col. Acting British Agent, Jedda. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the listing of this page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 April 29, I've removed a good deal of quoted material from the Notes section here. The edit history seems to show that that content was more than 25% of the whole page, and I've not removed it all; in my opinion, that's an excessive proportion. It's to be expected that an article such as this will need to rely quite heavily on quotation, as indeed it still does; but there is – in my view – absolutely no value in reproducing great chunks of text from the references. Indeed, I believe the article as a whole is improved by lightening that section.
Quotation is acceptable in Wikipedia, but within narrow limits. Our policy says " There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". Our guideline says " Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". I accept that some of the content I removed may perhaps by now be out of copyright. We have sister projects – Wikiquote and Wikisource – where some of this material could perhaps appropriately be hosted. I apologise if I messed anything up – I did try not to! Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I am preparing a summary of the notes on Talk:Balfour Declaration/Sources. Then we can discuss on a case by case basis. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm coming to this discussion from ANI. I haven't had any real chance to review the article yet (and may not today) but there are a couple of points I think need to be spelled out immediately.
First, when considering whether text is to be included, the standard to be applied is not the Berne Convention but Wikipedia's policies. Any attempt to assess individual quotes against the right to quote is a waste of time; Wikipedia's copyright policy is deliberately more restrictive than the law.
Second, the attempt to wikilawyer the text of that policy to mean extensive quotation from any single text is absurd. By that reading, any article could be entirely composed of copyright violations, so long as they were many and short. If the drafter of that policy had meant to say, extensive quotation of a copyrighted text is prohibited,
they would have done so. The attempt to read it as though they did is contrary both to good English style and common English usage. The fact is that that is not what the policy says.
GoldenRing (
talk)
23:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text- That is still just as absurd as last time you said it, and for all the same reasons. A case of IDHT is developing here. GoldenRing ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it is best to look at each case separately and see if the quotation is appropriate. Perhaps I can start in the section below? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm certainly not prepared to discuss anything on a case-by-case basis until and unless the bulk restoration of the unacceptable material, first by Oncenawhile and then by Rjensen, has been undone. In other words, they want a procedure where everything is out by default, and the parts which are agreed-to are included. Keeping in mind WP:DEADLINE, I propose a half-way compromise as a starting point, modeled on the proposal above by Oncenawhile:
Keep all the quotes in (1), which are definitely out of copyright, in the article. Move all the quotes in (2) to the talk page (or the copyright page or wherever it's convenient). Then we can discuss (2) one by one.
How does that sound? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd have seen this sooner if you'd pinged me, Kingsindian – I'm not watching this page closely. My thoughts:
I made an alternative suggestion above (use the sister-projects). Did anyone respond to that? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
On reading through the page (again) in relation to the question of "twice promised" and all the other real or apparent contradictions, the relevant material appears in two sections. First, in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie the Declaration text) there is a discussion about some aspects of UK policy and some discussion about the Mandate as well. Second, under "Effects of related British commitments during WWI" we have more discussion of what amounts to the same basic question.
It seems to me that the first section should confine itself to simply the meaning of the text and perhaps how it was to be given effect for purposes of the Mandate.
Then the second can be devoted to the vexed question of the inconsistencies and contradictions etc. and a suitable introduction to it could be simply to lift Balfours 1919 from the first section
"What I have never been able to understand is how [our policy] can be harmonised with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry... "
Thoughts? Selfstudier ( talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I will try to write here what I am doing as I go to try and minimize any confusion; as a first step, I will move all except the first 2 paragraphs of the material in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" to the beginning (for now) of the section "Effects of related British commitments during WWI". Afterwards,we can examine how to didy up the resultant. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Mandate itself is also a British policy (and as well subject to the Covenant of the League of Nations) and one which impacted on the Declaration directly yet I cannot see that the effects and results of this policy have been properly addressed although there is a discussion about it in primary source w (1930 interpretation of UK policy). For instance Churchill gave an interpretation of UK policy in 1922 and more controversially, in 1939, the British gave yet another interpretation in relation to Hogarth message. I guess what I am trying to say here is that if you are going to follow a timeline, then one needs to point up changes in British policy (or interpretations of British policy for the Mandates Commission)as you go along, alternatively deal with all the changes in policy in one section devoted only to that. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
To further elucidate, here are places where 1939 matters come up in the existing article
Related British commitments during WWI ...
...and by the time of the 1939 committee set up to consider the correspondence, it avoided taking a position on the matter altogether.
and
Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... A 1939 British Government committee led by the Lord Chancellor, Frederic Maugham, concluded that the government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine"
On the face of it there is a contradiction there, nor is it clear why one conclusion should be under a WW1 heading and the other under a Declaration text heading. Apart from that, the weight that has been given to 1939 is insufficient, given the importance of those events and the events set in motion then.
Finally, lest I talk myself to death, can we agree that there is a problem? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand your a,b,c structure and that you would like to maintain it if at all possible (my edit did not alter it at all, I just shuffled some stuff around within it as I am somewhat disagreeing as to what is content and what is impact). Let me try to explain some more; one way of viewing this (all of it) is simply as a series of UK policies (in response to whatever) and the first problem we have is that the "first" policy predates the subject matter of the article as does the second (McMahon and SykesPicot). So to deal with that you have shuffled these two items together under a heading "Related British commitments during WWI" (UK policies)and I have no real problem with that except it is not any of your a, b or c.(I'm just using "you" generically here, I do not know if you are the original author). Many people have a misconception about the Declaration, they see it and they believe they understand it and I am sure they do up to that point. I am not sure it strictly qualifies as a "policy" (Palestine did not exist then except on paper), it certainly became one once it was included in the Mandate and the Mandate also acted so as to alter the effect of the Declaration in some respects ( /info/en/?search=British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Legal_basis_and_drafting_of_the_mandate here and subseq by way of example and a bit as well for the "nonJews"). Now what about these other policies, we have AnglFrench, the Covenant, Hogarth, Basset (I cant find a copy of this), Declaration to 7, Allenby/Faisal. Some would say Hogarth is pretty important ("political") however it was not until 1939 that UK policy was interpreted this way to the Mandates Commission. OK, the sum total effect of most (but not all)of these things was looked into in 1939 and we know the conclusions (I do not agree with the the way those conclusions are represented in the article). In any case, they were the 1939 conclusions of the British and were somewhat different from conclusions that they had reached earlier. OK, I get the 100 years thing (that is why I am taking an interest and so will many others no doubt)I am simply taking a narrower view of things, much happened in 1939 (not least another War), the Jews decided that the UK was no longer "on it's side" regardless of whether that was true or not and crossed the pond. It set the stage for the end of the Mandate (and the "death" (purpose fulfilled) of the Declaration) I have tried to paint a picture of what I "miss" when I read the article, not sure if I have succeeded. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Just another little bit,the way I look at it, it's not that 1939 is an impact of the Declaration, it's that 1939 impacts ON the Declaration (alters its effect) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
How about a new section after that one called something like "Evolution of the mandate in practice" and filling that up with much of what is now in "Civil and religious rights.." (especially para 2)? Plus expand it a little to take in 1939 more fully. (Just as an aside, the dual obligation stuff is all very interesting, do we really need the whole timeline of that? Isn't the 1930 conclusion about it sufficient?) Tell you what, let me have a go at it and if you don't like it we can revert, edit it or whatever. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed my mind, I'll suggest in here first:- 1)Delete Para 2 of "Civil and Religious Rights.." 2)New Content after 4. The Declaration put 3)5. Evolution of the Mandate with following outline (not finished yet)
Although the British Mandate for Palestine as the vehicle for delivering the promises of the Declaration[111] was not finally confirmed until 1922 the British had in fact already switched from military to civilian rule with the appointment of Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner as of 1 July 1920. The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations' consent in 1923.
Because of these delays, the PMM did not have it's first review of the mandate operation until 1924 and used the term "twofold duty" [106] to refer to the pair of obligations to Jew and nonJew. In 1930 the Permanent Mandates Commission and the British Government in the Passfield white paper[w] confirmed that these obligations were of equal weight.
For an account of how the dual obligation was dealt with and the problems that were presented thereby see /info/en/?search=Mandatory_Palestine
Fifteen years after the Mandate was confirmed, the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission report, the first official proposal for partition of the region, referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations"[112][113] and with respect to the wider situation that had arisen in Palestine noted that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation".[114] The continuing intercommunal conflict had proven to the British that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences.[xviii][x]
The partition proposal was not taken up and just 2 years later in 1939 as WW2 loomed large and following the failure of the Arab Zionist London Conference and the report of the Committee set up to investigate Mcmahon and other UK policy documents, UK policy was substantively changed....
....End of Mandate
It's not intended to be a total history just key points relating to the Declaration. What do you think? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's mainly done now, section probably needs some tidying up and adding few more sources, will keep doing that,welcome any comments suggestions, is it a bit long? Selfstudier ( talk) 10:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Selfstudier: Some initial comments:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a bit of work there, I think I will just remove the section for now, maybe I will put it back in later when I find some free time to fix it up as you want. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
After some thought I picked up the Permanent Mandates Commission stub and have started to expand that and from there a new page Permanent_Mandates_Commission_(Palestine) and I have started to put the Evolution stuff in there. That seems to fit better with the Wikipedia bureaucracy than trying to fit it in here and as well having to compromise the content. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears that every mention of 1917 in the article was changed to 1918 without reference in a possible act of vandalism, but I do not have the privileges to edit this page, if someone could change it back to 1917 it would be helpful. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
We currently have two quotes from the Palin Commission report in blue backgrounded boxes. This seems UNDUE. Is there a particular reason we need this much text quoted directly from this document? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians does not seem to be published by an academic press or even I.B Tauris' "academic" imprint. A google search for Sahar Heneidi doesn't seem to return any relevant results about her bio (I'm assuming she's not the holistic therapist). Does anyone have any information on her credentials/expertise that would make her and by extension the book she wrote RS? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this review will help you decide? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13531040312331287674 Some brief details on this page too http://www.balfourproject.org/healing-the-wounds-of-history-looking-at-the-balfour-declaration-with-new-eyes/ Selfstudier ( talk) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The IP edits reverted by Hertz raised a good point - that the article is missing a mention of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. Oncenawhile ( talk) 15:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the statement ("The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded.") qualifies in the sense of high quality primary sources and
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully ie Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
In this case then, we do not actually need secondary sources to support the statement. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is what it says on Churchill White Paper page, it is not as if the conclusion we are attempting to write is not well known to scholars -
Subsequent revelations
A committee established by the British in 1939 to clarify the various arguments observed that many commitments had been made during and after the Great War—and that all of them would have to be studied together. The Arab representatives submitted a statement to the committee from Sir Michael McDonnell[5] which explained that whatever McMahon had intended to mean was of no legal consequence, since it was his actual statements that constituted the pledge from His Majesty's Government. They also pointed out that McMahon had been acting as an intermediary for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, Lord Grey had made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the Churchill White Paper's interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915.[6]
Years later, scholars searching through the declassified files in the National Archives discovered evidence that Palestine had been pledged to Hussein. The Eastern Committee of the Cabinet, previously known as the Middle Eastern Committee, had met on 5 December 1918 to discuss the government's commitments regarding Palestine. Lord Curzon chaired the meeting. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained the Hussein, Sykes-Picot, and Balfour commitments:
"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . Great Britain and France—Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, [and the Sharif of Mecca] who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[7]
On the Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement page it says with no sourcing whatever (the author probably thought it was obvious):
Between 1916-20, the British government interpreted these commitments as including Palestine in the Arab area. However, in the 1922 Churchill White Paper they argued instead that Palestine had been excluded.